Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

teuchter said:
Really tricky question.
Click to expand...
It certainly should be for the anti- car fundamentalists in here who regularly argue pedestrians can never ever possibly be at fault under any conceivable circumstance if hit by a car since they’re the vulnerable party.

Doesn’t get much more vulnerable than a pedestrian vs a 300-ton genocide machine train now, does it?
 
edcraw said:
Definitely think we should put T & P in charge of urban planning. 8ft fences along all roads and barriers at pedestrian crossings ftw!!!
Click to expand...
Surely you are aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of railway level crossings in this country fully accessible to pedestrians, right? Some of them don’t even have barriers at all. Others do, but the barriers are designed to stop vehicles and any pedestrian or cyclist can simply walk through the generous gap left.

So how do you feel about pedestrians and cyclists accidentally injured or killed at level crossings? Because anyone who seriously contests that peds can’t ever be held responsible or at fault in a collision with a car regardless of circumstances simply because they are the more vulnerable party can’t possibly suggest it should be any different at level crossings. Why should a fragile ped be expected to stop at the edge of a rail crossing and look for approaching trains?

I look forward to your (and teuchter ’s) explanation of why peds’ behaviour and burden of responsibility should be any different when crossing a set of railway tracks and crossing a busy road.
 
T & P said:
Surely you are aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of railway level crossings in this country fully accessible to pedestrians, right? Some of them don’t even have barriers at all. Others do, but the barriers are designed to stop vehicles and any pedestrian or cyclist can simply walk through the generous gap left.

So how do you feel about pedestrians and cyclists accidentally injured or killed at level crossings? Because anyone who seriously contests that peds can’t ever be held responsible or at fault in a collision with a car regardless of circumstances simply because they are the more vulnerable party can’t possibly suggest it should be any different at level crossings. Why should a fragile ped be expected to stop at the edge of a rail crossing and look for approaching trains?

I look forward to your (and teuchter ’s) explanation of why peds’ behaviour and burden of responsibility should be any different when crossing a set of railway tracks and crossing a busy road.
Click to expand...
Really giving platinumsage a run for his money here 👍
 
Right, I've been thinking about this conundrum that t&p has raised and I think I've got a solution. All those railways that run along in between the fronts of houses and shops and stuff, you know the kind where you just want to get from your front door to the bus stop ten metres away on the other side of the high speed railway that seems to be running just beyond your gate, or when you want to just cross over from the newsagent to the dentist on the other side, the other side of the mainline railway with heavy trains hurtling along it, that kind of thing, where two rows of shops and other services have been built facing each other across the railway line as if there's some kind of expectation that people will want to get between them. That kind of situation where for some reason a railway line has been built between them and you have to walk two miles to the next level crossing and then back up again. Or maybe you want to walk into town but to get there you have to cross ten or twenty of these rail lines at rail line crossings or junctions to get there. Those kinds of scenarios.
Well I reckon those kind of situations, we should make them a special kind of railway, where the trains that run on them run at a slow speed, and the rail lines are kind of built into a paved surface that pedestrians and even cars can also use. And they should be driven on sight, like a bus, not following signalling systems that tell the driver the route far ahead is clear and free of obstruction. And they should have things like magnetic brakes which mean they can stop more quickly than a normal train, almost as quickly as a bus or a car can.
Maybe this is all just a crazy idea but anyway maybe we can think of a special name for these kinds of railways.
 
teuchter said:
.
Well I reckon those kind of situations, we should make them a special kind of railway, where the trains that run on them run at a slow speed, and the rail lines are kind of built into a paved surface that pedestrians and even cars can also use. And they should be driven on sight, like a bus, not following signalling systems that tell the driver the route far ahead is clear and free of obstruction. And they should have things like magnetic brakes which mean they can stop more quickly than a normal train, almost as quickly as a bus or a car can.
Maybe this is all just a crazy idea but anyway maybe we can think of a special name for these kinds of railways.
Click to expand...

There‘s no safe speed for those kind of railways:

”The results show that the fatal risk of hitting pedestrians by a tram running at a speed of 50 km/h is two and a half times greater than that by a car. Research clearly proves that comparing to car impact speed, there is much higher probability of death when pedestrian is hit by a tram running at a speed of 30 km/h – almost 40% (compared to 5% when hit by car). There are even cases of deaths with a very low speed of tram (5–10 km/h).

Cities around the world reconstruct their transport infrastructure, sometimes taking experiments with new ideas, such as shared spaces or Tempo-30 zones with tram and bus traffic. Therefore, knowledge of “safe speeds” of PT vehicles is essential to avoid infrastructure errors that may result in death and serious injuries. On the other hand, light rails around the world are one of the key transport modes within the sustainable mobility, thus their speed and the ensuing from this time travel should not be low. Therefore, the speed limit values for trams in “vehicle – pedestrian” conflict areas should be reasonable, i.e., determined as a compromise between pedestrian safety and acceptable travel time in the tram.”

www.degruyter.com

Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of tram impact speed

The objective of the presented research-work was to develop a model to describe the risk of fatal accident involving tram and pedestrian. This study extends research concerning relationships between the “impact speed” and probability of pedestrian death in case of tram accident. Over 400...
www.degruyter.com www.degruyter.com
 
Let’s ban anything that moves that might hit people. Everyone should walk everywhere, barefoot of course so the particulates from their shoe soles don’t kill anyone.
 
edcraw said:
Because it’s a stupid question. Stupid and pro-car seems to go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.

So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?
 
edcraw said:
Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!

View attachment 330599
Click to expand...
Er, no we won't. Because as car ownership decreases, car club share use will increase. The overall number of cars on towns and cities might be somewhat reduced to a moderate degree at best, but you will never, ever be rid of them.

Which brings me nicely to the other question you have consistently refused to answer. Are you against car ownership, or all private car use including hire and club car vehicles? Please answer this time.
 
T & P said:
Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.

So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?
Click to expand...
Amazing that after 7,800 posts on this thread you are still struggling to understand really basic stuff, like "drivers should be ready for pedestrians to do unexpected things" does not equal "pedestrians should not have to look at all before crossing a road".

Like the goldfish in a bowl you'll return to this argument again in another 20 pages or so, having entirely forgotten what was explained to you the last time you brought it up.
 
T & P said:
Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.

So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?
Click to expand...
Okay, yes, pedestrians should pay attention but also we should reduce the risk posed by cars - slow speed limits, LTNs to stop rat running, more zebra crossing, remove parking to help sight lines etc etc

Much nicer than the alternatives of prioritising traffic by stopping where pedestrians can cross with fences & footbridges which we tried for years don’t you think?
 
T & P said:
Er, no we won't. Because as car ownership decreases, car club share use will increase. The overall number of cars on towns and cities might be somewhat reduced to a moderate degree at best, but you will never, ever be rid of them.

Which brings me nicely to the other question you have consistently refused to answer. Are you against car ownership, or all private car use including hire and club car vehicles? Please answer this time.
Click to expand...
I’m not against car ownership or cars generally just that we should stop prioritising them.

The backlash we’ve had against LTNs in Lambeth is truly pathetic and shows how entitled & selfish tons of motorists are.
 
This article is an informative read for any grown ups interested in considering the relationship between pedestrians and motorists in urban areas and for any grown ups who still think that American style "jaywalking" rules are something worth considering seriously.

www.bloomberg.com

When Cities Made Monuments to Traffic Deaths

A century ago, cars killed pedestrians and cyclists in record numbers. As traffic deaths rise again, it’s time to remember how US cities once responded to this safety crisis.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

For more than 90 years, there has been a tacit agreement in the US to treat the right to walk as dispensable, and to treat each death in traffic as an individual loss to be grieved privately, behind closed doors. These responses to the dangers of walking and biking have kept deaths among pedestrians and cyclists out of public view. They have promoted a tendency to attribute such deaths to individual failures for which individuals alone — reckless drivers or careless pedestrians — are responsible.

But a century ago, judges defended pedestrians’ rights in city streets. The convenience of drivers was no grounds for infringing these rights. Any motorist driving too fast to avoid injuring or killing a pedestrian was regarded as speeding. Deaths to pedestrians, and especially to children, were regarded as intolerable public losses to be publicly grieved by the whole community.

These ceremonies made public issues out of private losses, and committed whole cities to making walking safer, even at a high cost to drivers’ convenience. They also signified that pedestrian safety was not to be secured at the cost of pedestrian rights; a city had to accommodate walking at least as much as it accommodated driving. From this perspective, a pedestrian’s death was never just the fault of a careless walker or a reckless driver. It reflected the failure of a city to defend the right to walk.
Click to expand...


Among automotive interest groups — then sometimes known as “motordom” — this was not a price they were willing to pay. Even in city safety campaigns, motordom sometimes ridiculed the monuments to the victims of violent death in the streets. A float in Washington D.C.’s Safety Week include a mock grave for “A. J. Walker.” At a parade for Detroit’s Safety Week in May 1923, the Packard Motor Car Company entered a float bearing a sham tombstone that resembled Baltimore’s monument. Its inscription read: “Erected to the Memory of Mr. J. Walker. He Stepped from the Curb without Looking.” The Detroit Automobile Club awarded Packard a silver cup for this float.
Click to expand...

As efforts to restrict driving grew, motordom intensified its opposition. Two weeks before the Post-Dispatch editorial that warned of “mechanical restrictions” to reduce speed, Cincinnati voters considered a ballot proposition that would have required car owners to equip their vehicles with speed governors preventing them from exceeding 25 miles per hour. About 42,000 city residents had signed petitions to get the initiative on the ballot. With the help of the auto industry, local interest groups organized a successful “Vote No” campaign.

The threat of mandatory mechanical speed limitation convinced motordom that it had to change how traffic safety was defined. Two months after the vote in Cincinnati, Fred Caley, the head of the National Motorists Association, denounced the safety monuments. A competitor to the American Automobile Association with about 350 member clubs, NMA was striving to prove itself the better national advocate for motorists’ interests. The safety monuments, Caley said in a press release, are “the most fanatical safety plan conceived within recent years.” He called them “memorials to the stupidity displayed in accident prevention.”
Click to expand...

Some of these quotes from a hundred years ago could easily have been written by certain contributors to this thread - the ones who want to impose authoritarian regulations on pedestrians.
 
I hope the anti-carists on this thread are counting their lucky stars they don't live in a more pro-car country than the UK, such as Denmark.

Here's a typical Danish beach, and yes, those are all cars:

Capture.JPG

At least in the UK we strike a reasonable balance when it comes to such things and you can relax with your family on any typical sandy beach without being worried about getting run over.
 
platinumsage said:
I hope the anti-carists on this thread are counting their lucky stars they don't live in a more pro-car country than the UK, such as Denmark.

Here's a typical Danish beach, and yes, those are all cars:

View attachment 330641

At least in the UK we strike a reasonable balance when it comes to such things and you can relax with your family on any typical sandy beach without being worried about getting run over.
Click to expand...
So you’re accepting cars can be a problem!! Welcome to the war on cars!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Yossarian
Entirely unashamed ant car propaganda
Replies
7
Views
406
dessiato
dessiato
ska invita
Car diagnostic computer scanners
Replies
8
Views
273
mauvais
mauvais
kebabking
Car buying websites?
2
Replies
38
Views
942
colacubes
colacubes
danny la rouge
Car insurance rocketing
2 3 4
Replies
108
Views
3K
planetgeli
P
story
Has anyone tried Turo.com for renting a car?
Replies
3
Views
179
Winot
Winot
Back
Top Bottom